G.R. No.

156364

September 3, 2007

JACOBUS BERNHARD HULST, petitioner, vs. PR BUILDERS, INC., respondent.

FACTS: Petitioner Hulst and wife, Dutch nationals, entered into a Contract to Sell with the respondent (PR Builders) for the purchase of a 210-sq m residential unit in respondent's townhouse project. When respondent failed to comply with its verbal promise to complete the project, the spouses Hulst filed before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint for rescission of contract with interest, damages and attorney's fees.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner, a foreign national, is entitled to his claim.

HELD: Since the contract involved here is a Contract to Sell, ownership has not yet transferred to the petitioner when he filed the suit for rescission. While the intent to circumvent the constitutional proscription on aliens owning real property was evident by virtue of the execution of the Contract to Sell, such violation of the law did not materialize because petitioner caused the rescission of the contract before the execution of the final deed transferring ownership. In a contract to sell, the prospective seller agrees to transfer ownership of the property to the buyer upon the happening of an event, which normally is the full payment of the purchase price. But even upon the fulfillment of the suspensive condition, ownership does not automatically transfer to the buyer. The prospective seller still has to convey title to the prospective buyer by executing a contract of absolute sale. But petitioner is entitled to the recovery only of the amount of P3,187,500.00, representing the purchase price paid to respondent.

G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990 EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP. vs. THE SPOUSES LEONOR and GERARDO SANTOS, doing business under the name and style of "SANTOS BOOKSTORE," and THE COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
A person identifying himself as Professor Jose Cruz placed an order by telephone with the petitioner company for 406 books, payable on delivery. EDCA prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the purchase price of P8,995.65. On October 7, 1981, Cruz sold 120 of the books to private respondent Leonor Santos who, after verifying the seller's ownership from the invoice he showed her, paid him P1,700.00. Upon verification it revealed that Cruz had no more account or deposit with the Philippine Amanah Bank, against which he had drawn the payment check. EDCA then went to the police, which set a trap and arrested Cruz on October 7, 1981. Investigation disclosed his real name as Tomas de la Pea and his sale of 120 of the books he had ordered from EDCA to the private respondents. On the night of the same date, EDCA sought the assistance of the police in Precinct 5 at the UN Avenue, which forced their way into the store of the private respondents and threatened Leonor Santos with prosecution for buying stolen property. They seized the 120 books without warrant, loading them in a van belonging to EDCA, and thereafter turned them over to the petitioner. The private respondents sued for recovery of the books after demand for their return was rejected by EDCA. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the petitioner, after initial refusal, finally surrendered the books to the private respondents. ISSUE: Whether the petitioner has been unlawfully deprived of the books because the check issued by the impostor in payment therefor was dishonored. HELD: Ownership in the thing sold shall not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase only if there is a stipulation to that effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been paid. Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired ownership over the books which he could then validly transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by the private respondents to the books.

G.R. No. 169890

March 12, 2007

ESGUERRA vs. TRINIDAD and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN

FACTS: Under a notarized Bilihan ng Lupa dated November 10, 1958, petitioners sold to respondents parents (Trinidad spouses) a portion of about 5,000 square meters of the 23,489-square meter of land which they previously acquired from the Esguerra spouses. During the same cadastral survey conducted in the late 1960s, it was discovered that the about 5,000-square meter portion of petitioners parcel of land sold to the Trinidad spouses which was assigned Lot No. 3591 actually measured 6,268 square meters. The CFI, by Decision of August 21, 1972, awarded Lot No. 3591 in favor of Eulalio Trinidad. Pursuant to the Decision, the LRC issued Decree No. N-149491 by virtue of which the Register of Deeds of Bulacan issued OCT No. 0-6498 in the name of Trinidad. Upon the death of the Trinidad spouses, Lot No. 3591 covered by OCT No. 0-6498 was transmitted to respondents by succession. ISSUE: Whether the private respondents acquired the said disputed land although there be a greater area than that stated in the contract. HELD: In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract. In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose between two types of pricing agreement: a unit price contract wherein the purchase price is determined by way of reference to a stated rate per unit area, or a lump sum contract which states a full purchase price for an immovable the area of which may be declared based on an estimate or where both the area and boundaries are stated. In fine, under Article 1542, what is controlling is the entire land included within the boundaries, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or smaller than that recited in the deed. This is particularly true since the area of the land in OCT No. 0-6498 was described in the deed as "humigit kumulang," that is, more or less.